Prev: Re: Win95/NT Ship Generation program? Next: Re: Vector Rules

Re: DSII question: Artillery

From: Brian Burger <burger00@c...>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DSII question: Artillery

On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Paul Calvi wrote:

> At 09:21 AM 10/6/97, you wrote:
Status: RO

> >Hello,
> >	I have a question for the effect of artillery in DSII.	In the
front of
> >the manual it states that infantry is considered suppressed if
> >engaged by direct fire weapons, armor is suppressed only if an
element is
> >damaged or destroyed.  In the back under artillery it says that all
> >are suppressed by artillery even if it is only harrassing fire (no
> >munitions chit expended).  Is armor suppressed by artillery or only
if an
> >armor unit is damaged or destoyed by the artillery?
> >	Phil P.
> I've always assumed the former but the rules do contradict. I posted
> back that the whole idea of under fire markers for tanks are goofy
> (in their effect). Tanks under fire won't sit still, they'll MOVE. In
> even well trained infantry will do this. Michael D. Doubler, in his
> book "Closing with the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe,
> notes, "By late 1943 infantrymen had learned two techniques that
> reduce casualties. The best way to avoid losses was to keep moving
> and to close rapidly with the enemy. Infantry leaders taught their
> that 'hitting the dirt' upon enemy contact DID NOT MEAN FREEZING IN
> and that squads had to continue moving forward under fire. Soldiers
> discovered that MOVING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH concentrations of enemy
> fire greatly reduced casualties." [emphasis my own] In my posts I
> that veteran and elite forces actually be forced to move (in a
direction of
> the players choice) when under fire.
> -----
> Paul J. Calvi Jr.
> "If I had study war, I think I should concentrate almost
> on the 'actualities of war,' the effects of tiredness, hunger, fear,
> of sleep, weather....The principles of strategy and tactics...are
> simple: it is the actualities that make war so complicated and so
> difficult, and are usually neglected by historians."
> --FM Archibald Wavell to B.H. Liddell Hart (as quoted in
> The German Soldier in World War Two" by Stephen G. Fritz. )
Forcing vet and reg soldiers to move out from under arty fire sounds
an interesting idea - but it shouldn't be automatic, I think. You'd have
to make a reaction check, as with moving while under fire in the current
rules. If you made the reaction check, your troops move, but if you fail
the check, your troops have forgotten their training in the fright of
bombardment and have 'frozen' in place.

And if you do move ie make your reaction test, you draw fewer chits of
damage - there'll always be some chance of casualties, even if you to
forward out of the bombardment zone.

Maybe THREAT-2 check, and draw half the regular number of chits?

Let me know what you think...

Brian ( 

Prev: Re: Win95/NT Ship Generation program? Next: Re: Vector Rules